My thinking is the left-to-right numbering used for north-south highways. So I start from the left for the lower numbers and to the right for the higher numbers. Since US 59 is suppose to be mainline I-69, using my thinking, US 281/I-169 would be the first spur off of it since it intersects that route first, then US 77/I-369 would be the next. And since the Texarkana spur would very likely be the last before I-69 exits the state, it seems logical to make that spur I-969.

To keep open any possible loops around other towns between Laredo and Houston (such as possibly in Victoria), I skipped a couple of numbers (I-269 and I-469). Not to mention since there's likely to be a I-x69 loop around Houston, I matched up the number of its current loop (I-610). This then leaves open I-869 for any possible loops between Houston and the state line.

The one that really has me scratching my head would be the Interstate designation wanted for US 83. Guess you really can't call that a loop since it doesn't connect back to mainline I-69. (Otherwise I-269 would have worked nicely.) I guess it could be a spur if US 83 was at freeway standards all the way to Laredo, but then that would make US 83 I-169 since it's the first spur, meaning US 281 would have to be I-369 and US 77 would be I-569. Really unsure of this one.

Mind you, I'm not an expert in all the rules of numbering and so forth, so I'm sure I'm driving someone completely insane with my thoughts, but that's all they are. Thoughts.

Which beltway would be the Houston loop? We have one done and one being worked on, outside of 610. And better idea, Sam Houston turns into 869 or 845 since it is always known as Beltway 8.

I figured the Grand Parkway would be the I-x69 loop (I-669?) since it'll eventually roll near the refineries in Baytown, Pasadena, La Porte, and Texas City in its southeast quadrant while those wanting to bypass Houston can hit its northwest quadrant.

I have a hard time seeing the Harris County Toll Road Authority wanting to give up their cash cow. (Unless they were still able to toll it and keep it.) Not to mention the Sam Houston Tollway on its west and north side are already busy enough. Making it a bypass wouldn't seem like a good idea.

will routes 281 (from McAllen area) and 77 (from Brownsville) be dual parts of I-69, functioning like I-35W and I-35E in the Dallas/Fort Worth area?

I just received a comprehensive email from TxDOT that addresses a lot of I-69 issues. Indeed, it is possible that Texas will have "I-69 East" and "I-69 Central" shields by the New Year. At the risk of provoking boredom, I will paste the entire email (adding emphasis here and there):

Quote

Thank you for your interest in I-69 Texas. In June 2012, Congress amended the law that established High Priority Corridors 18 and 20, including US 59 throughout the state and US 77 and US 281 in South Texas, as future Interstate 69. The new legislation, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) states that these routes can be designated as part of the I-69 system if the route or a segment of the route meets current Interstate design standards and connects to, or is planned to connect to, an existing Interstate within 25 years. By allowing segments that are planned to connect to the Interstate to be designated I-69, the legislation permits the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to move forward with the designation process on segments of roadway that were not previously eligible because they did not directly connect to an Interstate. This recent legislation changed nothing else in the Interstate designation process.

The Interstate Designation Process

Currently, about 50 miles of US 59 in the greater Houston area and five miles in Texarkana are under review for Interstate designation. A section in the greater Houston area was approved to be added to the state highway system by the Texas Transportation Commission July 26, 2012. The process has three basic steps:Like the previously designated section of US 77 in Robstown, new sections must undergo an extensive engineering review to confirm that the highway meets Interstate standards. TxDOT must submit this review and a request for Interstate designation to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) before any route segment can be added to the Interstate system. TxDOT and FHWA then coordinate with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official’s (AASHTO) Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering to identify an Interstate number for the highway. Finally, the Texas Transportation Commission adds this newly numbered Interstate to the state highway system.

Designating Interstates in South Texas

In South Texas, US 77 and US 281 are part of the Congressionally Designated I-69 System. US 83 is not part of this Congressionally designated route, but TxDOT can still request that it be designated as an Interstate highway under different criteria.The number of requests for Interstate designation will depend on the number and types of design issues that deviate from Interstate standards for each individual highway. If there are few design issues for all highway segments combined, it is likely one group of requests for Interstate designation will be submitted at the same time for all three highways - US 77, 83 and 281. If there are numerous design issues on one of the three highways, individual requests for Interstate designation will be sent to FHWA separately so Interstate designation of the other highways is not delayed. The number of design issues, if any, will be known later this year once the engineering review is complete.

How will these roads be numbered as Interstate?

Ultimately, the Interstate numbering scheme will be decided by AASHTO’s Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering. Later this year, a segment of US 59 near Houston will be "signed" as I-69/US 59 along with the current section of I-69/US 77 near Robstown. Once highway segments in different corridors of the I-69 system have been granted Interstate designation, it is likely TxDOT will work with AASHTO to renumber the segments concurrent with US 77 as I-69 East, and those concurrent with US 281 as I-69 Central. US 83 Interstate route numbering will also be decided jointly by FHWA, TxDOT, and AASHTO and may be numbered as a spur of I-69, or designated a completely new Interstate, giving the Rio Grande Valley multiple Interstate highways. Because the primary national I-69 route extends into Louisiana south of Texarkana, US 59 north of US 84 will be on the I-69 system but its specific numbering will be determined in consultation with FHWA, AASHTO and TxDOT. US 59 from Texarkana to Tenaha may be designated in a manner that is consistent with an interstate spur, e.g. I-369.

What is the timeline for Interstate designation?

US 77, 83 and 281 in South Texas are currently undergoing an extensive engineering review to confirm that these highways meet Interstate design standards. This review is anticipated to be completed in fall 2012. Depending on the type and number of design issues identified during the reviews, one or multiple requests for Interstate designation will be submitted to FHWA by the end of the year. Approval for adding highways to the Interstate system will depend on FHWA’s timeline and the number of design issues that need to be addressed. This process has typically taken approximately six months. TxDOT plans to submit Interstate route number applications to AASHTO for consideration at their November 2012 meeting. Earlier this year, AASHTO conditionally numbered US 59 north of Houston as I-69, dependent upon FHWA’s official designation of US 59 as I-69. TxDOT anticipates seeking a similar conditional approval for the three highways in South Texas.

What highways are being considered for Interstate designation?

Highways currently under consideration for Interstate designation are:

US 59 in Texarkana, US 59 from I-610 on the north side of Houston to near Rosenberg, US 77 in South Texas, US 83 in South Texas and US 281 in South Texas

These highways are under consideration because they likely already meet Interstate standards and they are included in a corridor development plan that meets the legislative requirement of connecting to the Interstate system within 25 years. The Houston and Texarkana segments already connect to an existing Interstate. US 77 has a 25-year program development plan to upgrade to Interstate standards and connect to existing I-69 in Robstown. A feasibility study has started on US 281 to develop a program of upgrade projects in the coming months. Adding additional segments of I-69 to the Interstate system will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as careful consideration must be given to satisfying the federal requirement that all proposed segments connect to the Interstate system within 25 years. Please let me know if you have additional questions or need further details. Thanks.

If we are going to see "I-69C" and "I-69E" shields again, then I want my "I-10N" and "I-10S" shields for I-10 and I-12 in Louisiana....or just drop "I-10S" shields on Future I-49 South between Lafayette and New Orleans.

Why have FHWA and AASHTO rules for Interstate numbering designations if anyone can flout them at the tip of the hat??

I-69 should run on what was originally intended: US 59 from Laredo to Carthage/Tenaha, then US 84 to Louisiana. US 77 south of Corpus Christi should be an I-37 extension. TX 44 and the segment of US 77 from Corpus Christi to Victoria should be an even I-x69 loop. US 281 should remain US 281(though with a freeway connection bypassing George West to I-37), and ditto with US 83 (or, make that another I-x69 spur). Screw these "Central" and "West" designations, and be gone with this "we have to drop an Interstate shield on every freeway we get" meme.

Sure, it's madness, but AASHTO hasn't exactly stomped out to Minneapolis-St.Paul or Dallas-Fort Worth to peel off the E's and W's off the I-35 shields. Sounds like, without some kind of change we haven't heard about yet, the Valley will have some kind of madness. At least it won't quite be an I-99 or I-238 or, heaven forbid, another Breezewood....

I have already sent a followup email regarding TX 44 and will post info if and when I receive a reply.

TxDOT's reply:

Quote

SH 44 does not have a 25 year plan and is not part of the Congressionally Designated I-69 route. SH 44, like US 83, potentially could be added to the interstate highway system, once it's at interstate standards. Its numbering would be decided jointly by FHWA, TxDOT and AASHTO. Currently, because SH 44 is not a controlled access facility and does not have a 25 year plan, it is not under consideration for interstate designation.

Suffixed interstates are just plain wrong. As far as I'm concerned, I-35E and I-35W are abominations of the system as bad as I-99 and I-238 that should be removed. There's no need for more.

I can actually live with dividing I-35 in DFW and Minneapolis-St. Paul, because they are temporary and because they are within the same metropolitan area. It's the suffixed spur routes that I am against...and especially the idea of simply dropping Interstate shields on roads that aren't even completed.

US 59 from Mexico Border to East of Laredo – Due to limited right-of-way and congestion along existing US 59 in Laredo, committee members recommended that future I-69 planning in Laredo consider an eastern relief route that could potentially utilize existing Loop 20, provide an interchange with I-35 and connect to the World Trade Bridge border crossing with Mexico.

It would also be similar to the southern terminus of I-49 (I-10 interchange in New Orleans) in that one would need to make a significant drive south in order to drive north.

Definitely more practical; there are already substantial plans to "freewayize" Loop 20 with minimal relocations. Really the only traffic that would be going out of its way would be local traffic from downtown Laredo and NL, particularly once the fourth bridge is built south of the urbanized area to more directly connect through traffic from Monterey.

As far as the numbering business goes, the whole business is a mess, especially with Valley politics (Brownsville can't get a 3di if McAllen gets a 2di, and vice versa) and the lack of any in-pattern number between I-35 and I-37 where all these roads go. I can't see suffixes flying with AASHTO. My guess though is that US 77 "keeps" I-69, US 281 gets something else out-of-pattern but non-confusing like I-41, and the Laredo-Corpus corridor gets I-6 or something (while Freer-Victoria doesn't get built at all - my sense from my time in Laredo is nobody really cares that much about a slightly-shorter Houston route, while Corpus is a major priority).

I keep wanting to commend you on the information dig up or come across in research, etc. You and Bob Malme are great researchers.

As for complaining about the numbering,

I'm with Chris in that I doubt AASHTO will allow Suffixes and even if they do allow suffixes who cares (Don't most in the hobby like oddities and peculiarities - i mean after all a lot of people wish the color us route shields were still around). And he is also exactly right about the Valley politics - which is why there are the three branches in South Texas. Personally I have no issue if US 83 gets an I-2 or I-6 or if US 281 77 or 59 become I-33 or I-31 or an I-x69 or I-69E and I-69W.

When you add routes that were most likely not thought of (whether legislatively or not) in the original plans of this system, you are going to get numbering out of whack. If it meets the criteria for an interstate from design standards to national importance - does it really number what the number is?

My guess though is that ... ( ... Freer-Victoria doesn't get built at all - my sense from my time in Laredo is nobody really cares that much about a slightly-shorter Houston route, while Corpus is a major priority).

Lordsutch of i69info.com, et al I presume? I enjoyed reading i69info.com for a long time and still go to it for solid info. Thanks for the great work and I am glad you are now posting on this forum. Your insight into the Laredo mindset certainly explains the five priorities of the Segment 5 Committee (below). Since it was post #1, welcome!:

I certainly do; that's why I am entertained by the Congressional legislation regarding I-69 in Texas. It has designated and/or produced the following:

- an I-69/I-69 interchange in the Carthage/Tenaha vicinity;- a resolution from the Texarkana MPO seeking an I-69 designation for US 59 even though that part of US 59 would be part of an I-69 spur;- a realization from TxDOT that it would be better to seek an I-x69 designation for the Texarkana I-69 Spur (and avoid the problem of the I-69/I-69 interchange), even though it would result in an I-69 "child" 100+ miles from its I-69 "parent";- instead of having the three southern Texas legs be I-69 East, Central, and West, it was decided to have an I-69, and I-69 East and an I-69 Central;- presumably the political reason behind I-69 East and I-69 Central was the desire for the US 77 and US 281 corridors to have "equal" 2di status, even though the respective suffixes would make them "3 character interstates". (so why not "equal" 3di designations?)- a large part of the US 59 corridor that received the treasured 2di I-69 designation (from Freer to Victoria) appears to have been put on the backburner in favor of developing the SH 44 - US 77 corridor from Freer to Victoria, even though SH 44 is not part of the Congessionally designated I-69 corridor.

I am against ... the idea of simply dropping Interstate shields on roads that aren't even completed.

As an Old Guy, I respectfully disagree. Way back, as a kid growing up in the pre-internet days of the growth of the interstate system, I would give the annual Rand McNally intensive study and figure out the "pieces of the interstate puzzle" that had been added during the year. It was fun to watch the system grow in that manner. As for my parents and their contemporaries? As part of Brokaw's Greatest Generation, they bravely and successfully navigated the disconnected segments of the interstate system with ease and without complaint.

Thankfully Michigan has its own I-69 segment, reducing the length of the pointless multiplex to a few miles.

Actually the law requires them to post I-69 shields on any segment of Corridor 18 or 20 that is connected to the Interstate system ("A State having jurisdiction over any segment of routes referred to in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20) shall erect signs identifying such segment that is consistent with the criteria set forth in subsections (e)(5)(A)(i) and (e)(5)(A)(ii) as Interstate Route I-69, including segments of United States Route 59 in the State of Texas."). Corridor 18 includes "from Windsor, Ontario, Canada, through Detroit, Michigan, westerly along Interstate Route 94 to Chicago, Illinois."

Logged

Florida route log | pre-1945I will do my best to not make America hate again.Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

Looks like Google recently updated their maps to show the recently approved portion of I-69 in the northern part of Houston. I wonder how long it will take until we start seeing the signs being put up.